Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

And why shouldn’t SSE carry on themselves if the Charitable Trust pull out? There is nothing to stop them continuing. The full democratic process has been gone through; permission to proceed has been granted.

 

Nothing? The SCT is a 45% shareholder in the venture, or has that always been a lie? Their withdrawal of cooperation, or better still outright hostility would effectively stop SSE continuing, unless of course the SCT have been fools enough to sign away that power already.

 

It won’t matter who is elected on 3rd May, this is not something that SIC can reverse, so candidates standing shouldn’t pretend that they can.

 

Really?!? Wills single-handedly successfully stopped a replacement AHS being built at the Knab long after the democratic process had decided it would be so, and with the contractor on site. If a majority of the post May 3rd SIC vote to scrap or postpone VE, the situation is no different. New new broom disagrees with the old, cancels, that is democracy at work.

 

While you may well be correct that the SIC does not possess a specific mechanism that gives them the power to order all permissions grante dto be revoked, they possess plenty of powers and mechanisms that should they choose to use them, would delay the project so severely it would effectively be ground to a halt indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ @ Ian_H

What was it some Lord or other said about the isles being able to opt out of Scottish independence re the referendum issue?

 

You call the whole fiasco democratic? Please get real. Morally, it leaves a lot to be desired. As for literally democratic, roll on a Judicial Review.

 

And no, I'm not a member of Sustainable Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, quite a number of people will be adversely affected, but if the CT stay in and things are approached correctly, there should be some scope to minimise the adverse affects in the detailed design and implementation.

 

"quite a number of people will be adversely affected"... I agree.

 

Surely the only way to minimise the adverse affects of a turbine or group of turbines, particularly for people who will be living in closer proximity, is not to build them in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing a news item on tv must have been about 15 years ago away the thread was this Iceland was proposing to the UK goverment that they could supply most of britians power needs from geothermal power stations they wanted a partnership to share costs etc.Away the answer was no somthing about sucurity of supply britians commitment to clean nuclear power blah, blah .Looking back i think we missed a golden oppertunity there .I wonder if their still intrested probaly not after we treid to arrest there PM on antiterrorism charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ paulb: Maybe that would be better worded "....they've been built...." Our current (national) government seem less convinced windmills are the answer to everyone's prayers their predecessors seemed to. They seem more inclined to spread their bets and have a little of everything. Check it out, Google is your friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well said ian. sadly unlink and ghosty need to look south. even with all the councils opposed they get built. funny that the rspb are wanting one of these mincers near there HQ.

 

Oh, I have looked South, believe me. I've seen that on other developments whereby SSE have gone into partnership with LAs that it is SSE who provide the information on the websites and NOT a company having nothing to do with the project breaching company law.

 

Nothing wrong with using the tax payer then via the subsidies to build a windfarm and promise communities wads of dosh thereby hoodwinking LAs in the process and at the same time being a partner in laying a trial cable from Norway where there is cheaper hydro power? Yep, get the EU to fund that cable, persuade VE Shetland to invest, HOPE that OFGEM and National Grid will approve the cable to connect into the Norway one, use OUR money to start the monkey process and then CLOSE the VE windfarm in years to come as it is more cost effective to buy from Norway when that cable has been upgraded.

 

Yep, you can bet your bottom dollar, pound or euro that that is SSE's master plan. They've got money for this yet apparently they don't have the dosh to upgrade our existing network; that just shows how much SSE really care about the local community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that the Charitable trust are coming to a position where they will lose their position within Viking, we are in the turd again are we not. If that happens then we have no control of what and what not can be done within the company and no share of the money made. Please, for Shetlands benefit, don't lose it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that the Charitable trust are coming to a position where they will lose their position within Viking, we are in the turd again are we not. If that happens then we have no control of what and what not can be done within the company and no share of the money made. Please, for Shetlands benefit, don't lose it!!!

 

You are presuming a profit will be made, my dear fellow. The valuation snippet provided in the SCT's press release is only part of a valuation report. It is standard practise NOT to issue only part of a valuation as this does not give a true picture of the overall situation say, for example, a valuation report on a property. I'll e-mail one of my clients to get the actual wording but I'm pretty certain the same applies to valuation reports of other commodities/assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45% say is better than none.

 

no its not when the other 55% overrule you.

then all it is is 45% of the costs and no say.

Now this is being sold to us as a 50/50 project which it is not and never has been. The burradale boys would have to be daft to vote against their own interests and they might be many things but daft enough to vote themselves out of pocket, I seriously doubt it.

We are a minority shareholder.

Now if the agreement says the boys have to vote with the CT come what may then that is another thing but until we see the agreement in black and white then we will never know.

But I for one would never agree to that and I doubt they did either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from FAQ's on SIC website.

 

Question: " Viking Energy will make us plently of money to replenish the Reserves; you should get on with that project"

 

Answer: " Any income generated from the Viking Energy project will be for Shetland Charitable Trust which owns the investment. Shetland Charitable Trust cannot give that money to the council to pay for local government services."

 

Okay, fair enough, I know that the Shetland Charitable Trust supports many worth while projects in Shetland but I still think alot of the general public are confused about what any income could or could not be spent on - myself included.

 

I read somewhere that this project doesn't have shares as such, only voting rights. If the Shetland bit is 50% and the SSE bit is 50% then how can SSE go on without Shetland??? Surely it is a stale-mate situation?

 

I would also like to find out how many turbines are on the Busta Estate. In theory that money should be guaranteed and go directly to the SIC.

 

There has been much talk about the SCT selling out in the future but presumbly the other partners, including SSE, could do the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking up from what Ghostrider said.

 

The difference with the AHS was that the proposed AHS at the Knab was a Council project, so the SIC just had to say “we’ve changed our minds†and that was it. Project gone. But stopping someone else’s project is another matter.

 

The SIC may be able to refuse to allow Viking to build the 18 or so turbines to be sited on the Busta estate. But would that stop the windfarm going ahead, or would Viking just replace a few 3.6Mw turbines with 5 or 6Mw ones to get enough power to justify an interconnector? Their approval is for physical height of turbine, not power, so they have quite a bit of wiggle room there.

 

Could the CT with a 45% stake stop the project continuing? I don’t know, I’ve no idea what the terms of their agreement is with SSE. But I would be most surprised if SSE, an international company, have accepted a term which said “if we change our mind, hard luck, project goneâ€. But your guess is as good as mine on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The VE project, if it were to go ahead would have to improve some of the infrastructure, it may even go as far as sponsoring projects and working on environmental issues with regard to minimising the disruption when construction starts.

Generally, the money for this is given to the council to spend as it is needed, it also comes with preconditions.

 

The money to the Charitable Trust is separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...